Browse By

“…fomenting considerable polarization…”


I’m not saying that everything I see is a metaphor for the current emergency in the Church.

Just a LOT of it.

Someone recently noted that the pope’s weird wrecking-ball activities are “fomenting considerable polarization within the Church.” Hah! Yeah, you could say that.

At this point, do we have any hope other than schism? Than a declaration by the cardinals that this man and his gang of beasts are not Catholic, have never been Catholic and have no Catholic intentions or desires for the Church.

In related news, Rorate says the head of the SSPX is coming right out and saying now that they’ve pretty much got a done deal with the current regime of slavering rabid wolves in Rome.

That’s not what I heard from an SSPX priest of my acquaintance, so who knows…


Bishop Fellay, about 4:45, says the big difference with this pontificate is that the de facto schism that has existed for 50 years, is “open now.” We have bishops and cardinals openly joining a faction that is blatantly anti-Catholic. Indeed, anyone who still maintains the absurd farce that there is no civil war ongoing in the Church is simply dismissable.

~

5 thoughts on ““…fomenting considerable polarization…””

  1. J says:

    +Fellay may just know that he and the other Bishops aren’t getting any younger and wants to consecrate new Bishops without incurring Excommunication again :/

  2. Isabel says:

    I entirely agree that this pope is destroying – probably consciously – what remains of the Church. But he’s only putting the finishing touches on a job that was begun 50 years ago.

    I think the solution is not to focus on Frankie, but on the the cause of it all: Vatican II. Until VII is declared an heretical council and all of the decisions of the post-VII popes reexamined in the light of this declaration, I don’t think we will be able to move ahead or even deal with Francis effectively. Making it about VII makes it impersonal and theologically based, which is as it should be. All papal writings and rulings should be subject to review. Many people, even theoretically traditionalist folk, love JPII. I don’t, and in fact I blame his long, weak pontificate, his cult of personality and his often fuzzy thinking for having gotten us to this point. But not everything he did was wrong (especially in those brief years prior to the assassination attempt), and certainly most things that BXVI did were not wrong, but their work needs to be analyzed objectively and the bad formally rejected. The way to deal with it is simply by starting from the position that VII was so error ridden that it is not valid and all decisions based on it and its documents must be reviewed.

  3. MaryK says:

    So, how do you take Bishop Fellay’s response? He sounds cautious to me, and I’ve survived several upheavals in my years with the SSPX. But I tend to be hopeful. And I’m hopeful that any ‘joining of forces’ is only as good as the promises coming from Rome. I hope that most (or all) of the SSPX priests would walk away if it was just a conniving display. But many of the faithful will (hopefully, again) not give in to the wiles of the current pontificate. Of course I pray for the best outcome.
    I’m continuing to pray for the victims (hate to use that word, but appropriate in this case…) of the earthquake. Prayers for all, especially the souls of the departed.

  4. Evangeline10 says:

    Why on earth would the SSPX want to make this move now. Can there be any other reason than control that would incentivize Rome to lift a pinkie to reconcile with the SSPX? I would say they should wait and hope for better things but the next pope, if there is one, will likely be far worse.
    I know schism is terrible, but this is all horrible, so we’d only be going from horrible to terrible. That doesn’t seem so bad. At least we’d be out in the open.

  5. louiseyvette says:

    Where’s my piña colada?

Comments are closed.